Green Bay --- Despite the booming pleas for the Green Bay Packers to sign Steven Jackson, there's a good chance the Atlanta Falcons were the running back's No. 1 choice all along. Much of the hype around here was, apparently, overblown.

Delivering the latest and most important updates on the Green Bay Packers for your convenience.

IMO the time has come to finally invest a high pick into that position. We have spent 2 firsts and a lot of money on the O-line, and the running game has not improved. I am a firm believer that the problem is our RBs and NOT the line. We have had late picks and a really risky pick (Green, and his crazy Hawaii scheme) and none have worked out.

It's time to try this another way.

Our O was not impressive this year against the constant cover-2. We need a RB who can take advantage.

IMO the time has come to finally invest a high pick into that position. We have spent 2 firsts and a lot of money on the O-line, and the running game has not improved. I am a firm believer that the problem is our RBs and NOT the line. We have had late picks and a really risky pick (Green, and his crazy Hawaii scheme) and none have worked out.

It's time to try this another way.

Our O was not impressive this year against the constant cover-2. We need a RB who can take advantage.

I've been saying...and will continue to say that if Eddie Lacy is available at #26, the Packers should take him. He has low mileage in college and is a proven power back with good speed. I'd say our offensive line matches pretty well with theirs (not position for position).

Trade up in the 2nd and there is sure to be a C or DL available that can start right away.

There are plenty of backs out there better than what we have now. But without an upgrade at the offensive line, we're not going to see a significant improvement in our running game with a significantly better RB unless his name is Adrian Peterson. You can strip arm tackles but it's much harder to teleport through your own linemen who are getting stuffed and not making big lanes. Better off sticking with who we have now and use the money on the offensive or defensive lines, RB, safety, or TE if we're losing Finley.

I've been saying...and will continue to say that if Eddie Lacy is available at #26, the Packers should take him. He has low mileage in college and is a proven power back with good speed. I'd say our offensive line matches pretty well with theirs (not position for position).

Trade up in the 2nd and there is sure to be a C or DL available that can start right away.

I'm more in the line of thinking that we are OK with what we have at RB. I really like Harris, Benson, Green and Starks.

That being said, Lacy is a kid I would not mind at all seeing in the Green & Gold. He's one of the few offensive players I would support picking in the 1st round.

There are plenty of backs out there better than what we have now. But without an upgrade at the offensive line, we're not going to see a significant improvement in our running game with a significantly better RB unless his name is Adrian Peterson. You can strip arm tackles but it's much harder to teleport through your own linemen who are getting stuffed and not making big lanes. Better off sticking with who we have now and use the money on the offensive or defensive lines, RB, safety, or TE if we're losing Finley.

If the Packers draft a center that is a bulldozer, the Packers right side of the line is above average in the run blocking department. With a new center, Sitton, and Bulaga manning the right side the run blocking should be alright. The left side is in question with LT and I'd go as far as saying Bulaga can still move to LT (again, probably in the minority here) as Don Barclay showed some glimpses at RT with both run and pass blocking. Barclay gets an offseason and training camp under his belt, I'd be willing to continue him at RT.

I think taking a gamble with Barclay at RT is worth it, leaving center being the main opening position. EDS is serviceable, but won't do much more than what was previously there. I think adding a quality center to this unit makes the entire offensive line better overall. The other positions can be filled with what the Packers currently have.

I've been saying...and will continue to say that if Eddie Lacy is available at #26, the Packers should take him. He has low mileage in college and is a proven power back with good speed. I'd say our offensive line matches pretty well with theirs (not position for position).

Trade up in the 2nd and there is sure to be a C or DL available that can start right away.

My issue with Lacy is simple. He played behind the best offensive line in college football. There were holes against Georgia and Notre Dame that many running backs could've ran behind. That's why I think it's a buyer beware situation. He has good size, power, and competent speed. I think he may lack an extra gear, though. Nevertheless, he doesn't create and I don't think you spend a first-round pick on a running back that can't create. He’s a product of Alabama’s system.

The only thing that has been holding our running game back is the play calling. Between not putting any focus on actually running the ball, and a scheme that hasn't worked for the Packers. It looked late in the season, that McCarthy has finally realized or admitted it and started calling more of a power run game, getting away from the outside zone blocking. And it worked.

I have little fear about our run game if McCarthy keeps that up. We have guys who can block, when the coach adjusts to his players instead of trying to force them into something that doesn't.

this is off topic a bit, but I wonder if they would concider moving Bulaga to LT and let Barclay work RT.

I think they could give it a shot in TC. at least :-k

First off, it's said players improve the most from their first year to their second and Barclay fits into that. So if he improves maybe depending on how much.

But based off what I saw last year, I'd say heck no. Barclay did well at RT (with help) considering he was a rookie UDFA. But he looked like an OG (with help) playing well at RT. But Barclay was a GREAT battler... he struggled but if a guy made a mistake he used it to make it even harder. If the OTs get healthy and do well, then the OGs need to watch out for Barclay. If Barclay improves enough the OTs might need to watch out as well.

Also as Mike McCarthy keeps saying Bulaga is an all pro RT (when fully healthy), he struggles against speed some (as the Seahawks game pointed out) so he might not be an all pro LT.

Newhouse seems up and down... but when he's up he does pretty well but doesn't finish giving a good pass rusher a couple chances to get by him. But he's shows the upside where he could handle it but still needs more work and needs to get more physical.

Plus there is Sherrod, who's said to be fully healthy, I've heard he's a power mauler RT by some during the draft, but honestly I never saw that on tape... what I saw was a great technician who beat guys with technique not power or brawling with them. So I think Newhouse and Sherrod would be best at LT... and I still don't get trying Sherrod at OG... seem like all that did was destroy his early confidence. I think they were trying to get his confidence up and push Lang at LG to be his best.

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People~ madeby ~ pack93z ~

IMO the time has come to finally invest a high pick into that position. We have spent 2 firsts and a lot of money on the O-line, and the running game has not improved. I am a firm believer that the problem is our RBs and NOT the line. We have had late picks and a really risky pick (Green, and his crazy Hawaii scheme) and none have worked out.

It's time to try this another way.

Our O was not impressive this year against the constant cover-2. We need a RB who can take advantage.

I hear what you are saying, but it isn't even close to passing my personal eyeball test. I don't see a hole for the running back to run through, except when he has one, then seems to do just fine, thank-you very much.

Maybe our coaching and scheme is wrong. It happens. Personally, I lean more towards that than anything. Regardless, I'm pretty sure our line sucks, notwithstanding our recent investments into it. I'm far more optimistic about the RB's in the short-term-- again- eyeball test (subjective, of course)

I am not saying I think you are wrong- I just wonder about the whole damn disgusting thing. It SUCKS not having the-or close to "the" best line in the NFL, when I think we really oughta aspire to that...

I'd like to see some GBP reporter take Jeff Saturday out to some bar and get him drunk... then report on his perspective of the Packers line, scheme, RB's...

THAT would interest me.

...plus what Wayne said. I tried to explain that a while ago, got CREAMED for it in here...

damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.

Our O was not impressive this year against the constant cover-2. We need a RB who can take advantage.

I don't know if the Packers are going to resign him or not... but Cedric Benson was getting good yards after contact.

If Starks could stay healthy he's pretty physical as well.

The Bucs are rumored to be looking to trade RB LeGarrette Blount for a 5th... he's got problems, including fumbling and pass blocking and some attitude... but Ahman Green had the fumbling problem, blocking normally is teachable to big backs... and attitude... tell coach Greene he looked at his Wife the wrong way that will work it's self out [boxing] [laughing]

Now for the speed backs,

Harris looked good.

Green has the speed but injuries (including a knee one) and he doesn't know how to read blocking or be patient... he got better about being patient and waiting for the hole but then got the knee injury (which I don't know, is he expected to fully heal?) ...

But now I got a name for ya...

LaRod Stephens-Howling.... I think he might be the next Sproles.

After the other RBs got injured he got a shot this last year, and when there was a tiny crack of a hole or bigger, he looked pretty good (for what you would expect).

Give him a better OL (than the horrible Cards OL) and a passing game (that Cards didn't have) where teams can't target him, he might be Sproles, and Mike McCarthy could use him like he used Cobb last season and have Cobb out on WR routes, basically Cobb is the new Jennings and Stephens-Howling is the new behind the OL Cobb / Sproles.

In cover 2, the Safeties are deep. Get him to the second level and he'd make thing happen.

Though other teams might be interested... like the Pats. Lions and Saints.

Pats lost Danny Woodhead

Saints like that kind of RB

Lions wanted a guy like that, but might be less interested now they got Bush, but might be willing to sign another.

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People~ madeby ~ pack93z ~

IMO Our runningback situation right now is possibly the worst in the league. Alex Green be it due to injury (recovering from the ACL) or inability cannot handle the load, he doesn't seem to be able to find the hole and hit, he can run off tackle and outside but he just doesn't seem to have "it" to me. Starks has a lot of promise but dude has never finished a full season cannot rely on that as a prominent feature for the offense. Harris gave us a bit of a spark and is a nice versatile fixture for the offense, however his short stature is likely not going to allow him to be any sort of featured back. Sane has potential but again health is a huge question mark, and we don't know how Benson is going to bounce back if we even bring him back.

This is the kind of situation that really pisses me off. Thompson has to see how terrible we've been in the run game and I really think the Oline gets a worse rap than it deserves in this subject. Forking out a little extra for a Pass Blocking, receiving, punishing runner like Jackson would have been justified in my point of view, but I'm not a GM so what can you do. Thompson is a great drafter and talent evaulator but the dude has done little to nothing in free agency since we brought Pickett and Woodson aboard, he's got to see that we need some help and when we have a chance to address something like that in FA, paying a little extra is not always a bad thing.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.